Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tripple Underpass


Recommended Posts

deleted for space

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tim

good work here,

the House committe was only relatively better

than the original FBI/ Warren investigation,

and certainly not definitive.

The prone witnesses, they dropped right away when the bullets flew,

so it may only be a few seconds between the limo clearing the frame and

the photo of the Classic Gunman at ease. I do make out a profile facing

downrange in the same position, so it is 1)firing position, 2)at ease (head Up) and then 3)eyes right, which is all logical. maybe 4) hand-off rifle into parking lot.

The strength of your case rests on the three core photos,

the gunman in head down firing stance, and then marksman at ease.

I'm having a little trouble orienting, but it seems this gunman would have been back behind zapruder and fired over both the Picket fence and the concrete retaining wall, correct? All that points to an

elevated gunman. Snipers do get up on stands, or fire from truckbeds... so the nine foot tall goliath objection is specious....is a vehicle showing to the gunman's right (our left)? it is something, the profile photo shows a landau roof better, but it would have been very high to top the fence, but there it is...we can see it, and we can see the rifle marksman, so the scale is okay....the rifle hand off photo...not as compelling...could be a lot of things...also everybody is running to the corner of the fence at the underpass...(Tosh says that's where echoes from the south knoll

may "ventriloquize" giving a false origin for the shots)....but overall, the original

photos you posted and the profile make me think a shooter was up in there...elevated, or in a high truckbed. OH I SEE, you think he fired over the concrete retaining wall only and then passed the rifle back over the higher picket fence? Is that it?

Then what is the "car hood" he's next to...?

Great stuff

shame we have to do the work, investigate a cold murder...

SHANET

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deleted for space

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe he was up near the retaining wall either; rather, it looks to me that he is just in front of the pergola to the immediate left of the steps, in this location:

Tim,

I have two problems with this. One, the problem of size I mentioned earlier. When I said he would have to be the size of Goliath, I didn't mean just height-wise. The image looks overall too large to be a person back where you say he was.

Second, I believe it was pointed out some time ago on another forum that if this person was where you say he was, he couldn't even see the limo over the retaining wall. Whether this is true or not you can check out for yourself when you get to Dallas. Take a photo for us of what he could see from where you say he was.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think of Tim's pictures of the Classic Marksman

over on the triple underpass thread?

Is it a shooter, and where exactly is he? (Shanet Clark)

I've transplanted Shanet's question into this thread.

The jury is still out for me on this one. I take Ron's points as well as Tim's argument for it.

The bottom line is I just don't know. It would be wonderful to get this image to one of those Hollywood editing suites where they can clarify blurs and whatnot. Anyone know George Lucas?

Seriously, putting this image to a digital test might be interesting indeed.

FWIW.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deleted for space

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim,

That last frame gives me the best feel for the topography

and scale, it took me a while to understand the perpendicular 'Alley'

that was used. I'll look over this and get back to you, but

certainly no major problems....I would put a highway pylon at the

curb at the point of the headshot(s) and photograph this from the "perpendicular alley, over the fence, over the wall, and have people in the Dix and Moorman point of view photograph someone in position.

(( ps. did you get the attachment?)))

Shanet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, I believe it was pointed out some time ago on another forum that if this person was where you say he was, he couldn't even see the limo over the retaining wall. Whether this is true or not you can check out for yourself when you get to Dallas. Take a photo for us of what he could see from where you say he was.

Ron

I'm the person who told Tim that the HSCA classic gunman couldn't even see the President from where he was said to be located. Then Tim gave a location at the shelter wall and not back into the parking lot as the HSCA had thought the alleged individual was supposed to be. So then I showed him Moorman's photo of that spot near the shelter and there is no one there, yet he now comes to another forum to make a case for it. Why on earth would one want to use a dark degraded image to make a case for a gunman and not consider the better photo showing the same location quite well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't appreciate the implication regarding coming over to this forum. I believe that there are numerous people here, including John Simkin, who know very well that I didn't come here for any agenda other than to participate with more intelligent and well-behaved researchers. Some of the words that I quote Bill as using are "pathetic," "inept," "just plain stupid," and "babbling idiot." It is Bill Miller's position that both Badgeman and Hatman appear in Moorman and Classic Gunman does not. He has also said that he is "certain that no shot came from the South Knoll and hit JFK in the throat." Admittedly, I'm not as certain that the sun will rise tomorrow as Bill is of his own every utterance.

Tim

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, john

TIm's proposals, while not totally "Clinching" are solid and well

thought out. I've noticed in this forum, at least, the good is pushing out the

bad, and undistinguished opinions are ignored, exposed or dispensed with.

(and the weak threads fade to the bottom of the heap)

Lets all be vigilant and call

out the misinformed, the disinformation squads and those that would

post material so bizarre that it impugns us all.

Back to the issue....

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SCALE

THE GOLIATH OBJECTION IS SPECIOUS, ie FALSE.

Look at the reference photo, the one with the tourists milling about.

The woman in RED and the man reading the PAPER (or map)

they aren't Nine Foot GIants...they are right where

the classic gunman appears, and about the same size as the classic gunman.

Tim is on to something.

The three photos he posted first,

they can't be dispensed with so easily...

To me the Classic Gunman is a real picture image, well defined,

with multiple details that solidly indicate a Marksmen with a Sling and Rifle.

In Multiple exposures over time ....

but the "badgeman"

is a suggestive, potential image only, in only one photo,

and quite possibly a play of light ....

Shanet

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the rendition of the photo that presents Bills position, with assassins visible in both yellow circles and the classic gunman dismissed in the red.  When you aske him for a "better" photo, his response is that he doesn't have the whole photo enhanced to his liking.  My question back would be why does he need to resort to a cropped version to make his point.

For the benefit of those who have not been on Lancer and seen the images presented to Tim - here are three of them below.

The first image is of the classic gunman figure as dealt with by the HSCA. The HSCA looked at three light spots that took the shape that has been called "the classic gunman" posture. Those light spots are marked on the Nix frame in example one. The second attachment shows the view of the parking lot as seen from where Moorman stood. I pointed out to Tim that the suspected car area the HSCA dealt with was not even visible to Mary Moorman, thus no shooter could have been firing at JFK because Kennedy was at an even lower elevation that Moorman was. In other words - if Moorman cannot see the shooter over the wall, then the shooter cannot see her. More importantly is the fact that the shooter could not see the lower elevated Kennedy.

The third attachment - During the same time the Nix film was alleged to have captured the 'classic gunman' figure - Moorman took her photograph looking over the wall at the same area. The same light spots can be seen in part over the top of the concrete wall because of Moorman's upward angle to the walkway. Moorman's photo is light enough to see that no one is at the shelter wall, yet Tim cannot accept this and would rather go back to the poorer dark Nix image and try to make a case for a gunman out of light reflections being cast against a shelter wall. My position was then as it is now ... it is that I find it reckless, foolish, and some other terms Tim posted for someone who would use a poor dark image to make a case for something when a lighter better image shows no one is there.

As far as the Hat Man and Badge Man images - I have already posted Hat Man's image on this forum and I know Jack White has shared the Badge Man image in it's raw form. Tim's complaint has been that he wants the entire Moorman photo posted and that is what I do not have access to any longer. All I have are the scans of certain key areas. Maybe Jack White still has his full Moorman photo negative that was used for the Badge Man work ... that will be up to Jack to post it if he desires to. What makes no sense to me is that there are only three key locations being discussed here for a a possible assassin and as long as we have good scans of those areas - what difference does it make if we have the whole Moorman photograph. That arguement makes as little sense as wanting to use a poorer dark image to show a classic gunman figure over a lighter clearer Moorman photo.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill is being directly misleading with his yellow squares in Moorman, which in no way relate to any point I've made. This was made clear to him on Lancer and he sees no reason to correct himself. Admittedly, I have not adjusted my thinking based upon Bill's unsubstantiated certainty. If he thinks the adjectives he so readily uses against those who don't agree with him apply to my examination of what was labeled decades ago as the "classic gunman," then he should show us a FULL COPY OF MOORMAN which demonstates his point - pure and simple. Where is the full copy of Moorman which shows Badgeman and Hatman and also does not show Classic Gunman? Otherwise he is being nothing more than obstructionist, and he is drawing in irrelevant squares to mislead. He doesn't even attempt to explain how the same figure in the same location is shown in Bell.

Tim

P.S. Now that Bill went back and edited his post and added two photos, I now add that he is still missing the point of separating the gunman image from the car image. I agree that the gunman would have to be in the Moorman field of view, but not the car; that point has been made to him repeatedly, so why even go there? Secondly, when he says that he pointed out to me that the car was too far back for a shooter, and that I "THEN" moved the figure up to the shelter, that is either bad memory or ongoing and deliberate disingenuousness. Back when we debated this and he mischaracterized my position then, I immediately corrected that he was ignoring my stated premise that the guman was not atop the car. He also doesn't explain how or why Badgeman would be shooting 4/18s after the headshot. I have to wonder why he is so intent on arguing that the classic gunman image isn't worthy of modern photoanalysis? Perhaps, as he said today to another, my "personal unpreofessional [sic] opinion is of no value to anyone," and that therefore he, as sole vicar of truth, is justified in his ceaseless attempts to cause others to cease all discussion in the face of his (professional?) certainty. He argues and argues to shut me down, and never ever produces evidence of his outrageous certainty that two gunmen are visible in Moorman's Polaroid, but not "classic gunman." I'm sick of the pompous approach enough to resort to using one of his own words: "pathetic."

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SCALE

THE GOLIATH OBJECTION IS SPECIOUS, ie FALSE.

Look at the reference photo, the one with the tourists milling about.

The woman in RED and the man reading the PAPER (or map)

they aren't Nine Foot GIants...they are right where

the classic gunman appears, and about the same size as the classic gunman.

In looking at that photo, I think you may be right. It's sometimes easy to forget, without a photo reminding you, how small that place actually is.

BTW if you look to the right of the woman in red (her left), there's a big splotch of light and shadow on the wall of the shelter. At the right time of day, given the right tree growth, I can imagine that splotch taking the form of a classic gunman. Just a possibility.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deleted for space

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim,

If light and shadow create a particular image on a wall, I don't see why that image would not show up in two or three different films or photos, all taken at the same approximate time, if not at the exactly the same angles. I don't know this, I'm not an expert on such matters, it's just my intuition.

My intuition also tells me that an assassin, once he has fired a shot or shots at the president, would not just stay there in view where he was at (in Nix, I believe, not even moving the rifle from its aimed position), watching the limo going on through the underpass, but would be making his exit faster than you can say "Hatman" or "Black Dog Man."

The experts say there is no flesh tone in this image, as there is in BDM, which they therefore assumed was an actual person. I don't know how these things are determined, as I know nothing about photography and photoanalysis, that's just what they say, and it jibes with my intuition that there was no one there.

You may be right, I just don't think so, so far.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...